entrations were regarded non-adherent and had been excluded in the analyses. All sufferers with EFV exposure larger than the reduce limit of quantification have been considered eligible for the analysis. EFV C12 therapeutic variety is inside 1000000 ng/mL [20]. two.3. Quantification of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Contextually to EFV quantification, total serum 25(OH)D3 was quantified by using a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA; DiaSorin LIAISON25 OH Vitamin D TOTAL Assay. This Estrogen receptor Agonist site technique does not permit for us to differentiate between D2 and D3 types. Serum Vitamin D CYP1 Activator medchemexpress levels were classified, in line with manufacture reference values, on (i) deficiency (ten ng/mL), (ii) insufficiency (11 to 30 ng/mL) and (iii) sufficiency (30 ng/mL) [21]. two.4. Statistical Analysis All of the continuous variables were tested for normality with all the Shapiro ilk test. The Kolmogorov mirnov test was performed so that you can evaluate the distribution, comparing a sample using a reference probability distribution. Non-normally distributed variables had been described as median and interquartile range. The correlation between continuous variables was performed by parametric and non-parametric tests (Pearson and Spearman). Non-normal variables had been resumed as median values and interquartile range (IQR), whereas categorical variables were resumed as numbers with percentages. Kruskal allis and Mann hitney analyses had been viewed as for differences in continuous variables in between different groups (which include vitamin D levels stratification and seasons), contemplating a statistical significance using a two-sided p-value 0.05. Chi-squared test was applied to evaluate differences involving categorical variables (like vitamin D stratification values and EFV-associated cutoff values).Nutrients 2021, 13,4 ofAll of the tests had been performed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows v.26.0 (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA). 3. Outcomes 3.1. Individuals Traits Qualities in the 316 analyzed sufferers are reported in Table 1: 227 sufferers had been enrolled in Turin, whereas 89 men and women were enrolled in Rome.Table 1. Patients’ traits. “/” indicates no out there information. Qualities n patients Turin Cohort 227 46 (391) 184 (81.1) 177 (78) 75.5 (28.84.eight) 717 (553.370.0) 22.three (15.11.2) 23 (ten.1) 143 (63) 61 (26.9) 17 (7.85) Rome Cohort 89 45 (37.53) 72 (80.9) 85 (95.five) / 546 (408.585.5) 21.9 (16.18.eight) 11 (12.4) 61 (68.five) 17 (19.1) / Total 316 44 (37.59) 256 (81) 262 (82.9) 75.five (28.84.eight) 584 (45046) 22.three (15.50.3) 34 (10.8) 204 (64.six) 78 (24.7) 17 (7.5) 0.867 0.003 0.001 / 0.001 0.657 0.565 0.333 0.339 / p-ValueAge (year), median (IQR) Caucasian ethnicity, n ( ) Male sex, n ( ) Viral load (copies/mL), median (IQR) CD4 (cells/mL), median (IQR) Vitamin D levels (ng/mL), median (IQR) Deficiency (10 ng/mL), n ( ) Insufficiency (110 ng/mL), n ( ) Sufficiency (30 ng/mL), n ( ) Vitamin D supplementation, n ( )three.two. Vitamin D Distribution The 25(OH)D3 levels distribution (ten, 110 and 30 ng/mL) was reported in Table 1; viral loads for the Rome center were not out there, because these data have been hard to get just after years. General, the 25(OH)D3 concentrations weren’t drastically unique within the two cohorts (p = 0.657), and in each cohorts, a similar frequency of patients presenting 25(OH)D3 level under 30 ng/mL (deficiency 12.four vs. 10.1 ; insufficiency 68.five vs. 63.0 ) was observed. Furthermore, an improved number of individuals had 25(OH)D3 concentrations larger than 30 ng/mL (26.9 vs. 19.1 ) within the Turin cohort, b